United States v. Griffiths, 750 F.3d 237

Griffiths, executive director of NETS, was charged with (1) making false statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001) by submitting fabricated board minutes, (2) obstruction of justice (18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2)) based on those minutes, and (3) mail fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341) for false statements on a Dormitory Authority funding application.
Trial proceeded; after close of evidence and the charging conference, Griffiths’s retained counsel, Jared Scharf, suffered two strokes and was hospitalized and unavailable for an indeterminate period.
The court adjourned briefly, appointed CJA counsel Bennett Epstein to advise Griffiths about options, and after two weeks (with no reliable prognosis for Scharf) the district court, over Griffiths’s objection, appointed Epstein to deliver the defense summation rather than grant a mistrial or an indefinite continuance.
Epstein, who had not witnessed live testimony, prepared during the adjournment and delivered closing argument; the jury convicted Griffiths on all three counts.
Griffiths moved for a new trial and judgment of acquittal arguing denial of Sixth Amendment rights (counsel of choice / ineffective assistance because substitute counsel had not seen the evidence) and insufficient evidence; the district court denied relief. Griffiths appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether appointing substitute counsel over objection after defense counsel became incapacitated violated Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice	Griffiths: court denied his right to counsel of choice by forcing substitute counsel instead of waiting for Scharf	Government: court may appoint substitute counsel when continuance is impracticable and must balance scheduling and fairness	Affirmed: no per se violation; court acted within discretion after reasonable efforts to accommodate Griffiths’ preference
Whether appointment of counsel who did not witness trial testimony is per se ineffective assistance	Griffiths: counsel who never saw the evidence cannot provide effective assistance; per se prejudice exists	Government: no per se rule; defendant must show particularized prejudice under Strickland; substitute counsel was competent and prepared	Affirmed: no per se rule; no showing of prejudice, so ineffective assistance claim fails
Whether evidence was sufficient to support convictions for false statements, obstruction, and mail fraud	Griffiths: minutes and questionnaire statements were not shown to be material / lacked fraudulent intent	Government: minutes fabricated to show approvals and transfers were material; circumstantial evidence supports intent on the questionnaire	Affirmed: viewed favorably to Govt., evidence sufficient for all three counts

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Gonzalez-Lopez v. United States, 548 U.S. 140 (U.S. 2006) (right to counsel of choice is not absolute)
Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153 (U.S. 1988) (trial court discretion in counsel substitution and conflict questions)
Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1983) (trial courts have broad scheduling discretion)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
United States v. Rondon, 204 F.3d 376 (2d Cir. 2000) (per se ineffective-assistance categories)
United States v. Stewart, 433 F.3d 273 (2d Cir. 2006) (materiality of false statements)